FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LIMERICK CORPORATION (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR800/99/MR.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed by the Corporation since 1985. In 1996, she was appointed Acting Supervisor following the retirement of the Supervisor in the Roads Department.
In 1997, the Corporation carried out an assessment of the post held by the worker concerned and it was decided that the grade of Assistant Supervisor was more appropriate to the position than the grade of Supervisor.
The Union cannot accept this downgrading of the post and is seeking the appointment of the worker to the post of Supervisor on a permanent basis without competition.
The Corporation rejects the Union's claim and the dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His recommendation issued on the 15th of May, 2000, as follows:
"In the circumstances, I now recommend the following:
(a) The worker's post should be examined at an early date by an agreed external assessor, with the Irish Productivity Centre being asked to undertake the examination in the event of the parties failing to agree on an assessor;
(b) If the post is then graded at the level of Supervisor, a competition to fill the post should be held in the normal way, and the worker should apply for the position;
(c) If the worker's application should prove unsuccessful, and if by that time her substantive grade is still below that of Supervisor, the parties should meet urgently with a view to resolving the differences between them, with a further Rights Commissioner hearing taking place if either side deems it appropriate."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation).
The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court, in accordance with
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the
appeal on the 20th of September, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The results of the assessment carried out in 1997 were never given to the Union or the worker for comment.
2. The post of Supervisor was deemed a promotional opportunity within the Roads Department for over thirty years and it is not acceptable that such a post should be downgraded.
3. The post must be re-established and the worker concerned be appointed without competition.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. An assessment of the position held by the worker concerned was carried out and it was decided that the grade of Assistant Supervisor was more appropriate to the position taking into account the level of responsibility, workload and duties carried out by other Assistant Supervisors.
2. The worker concerned is currently on a career break, therefore it is an ideal opportunity to carry out an examination of the post as recommended by the Rights Commissioner.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is reasonable in the circumstances of this case.
The Recommendation is upheld and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29 September, 2000______________________
GB/SHKevin Duffy
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.